missmuffet Posted May 20, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,991 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,689 Content Per Day: 11.81 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted May 20, 2014 Hi Shiloh, I'm not picking a fight, I'm just asking a question brother God said "Let there be light." I'm very sure that God is more than able to create something out of nothing. And as for this light pre-existing the stars (pay attention to the order in which things are created): Genesis 1 1 In the beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and an empty waste, and darkness was upon the face of the very great deep. The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good (suitable, pleasant) and He approved it; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament [the expanse of the sky] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters [below] from the waters [above]. 7 And God made the firmament [the expanse] and separated the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heavens. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be collected into one place [of standing], and let the dry land appear. And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the accumulated waters He called Seas. And God saw that this was good (fitting, admirable) and He approved it. 11 And God said, Let the earth put forth [tender] vegetation: plants yielding seed and fruit trees yielding fruit whose seed is in itself, each according to its kind, upon the earth. And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed according to their own kinds and trees bearing fruit in which was their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good (suitable, admirable) and He approved it. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs and tokens [of God’s provident care], and [to mark] seasons, days, and years, 15 And let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light upon the earth. And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light (the sun) to rule the day and the lesser light (the moon) to rule the night. He also made the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18 To rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good (fitting, pleasant) and He approved it. I don't see anywhere in the scriptures that that first light He made was a manifestation of His glory. I just wondered where you got that idea from. That's all. Once again, be blessed That is what I think Zion "God is more than able to create something out of nothing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Genesis is quite open to interpretation simply because it is not a detailed, scientific account ... ~ God's Historical Accounting And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Genesis 2:25 Will Never Be Successfully Overturned And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31 By Man's Philosophical Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(c ) Interpretations He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11 You See Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. Mark 13:31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolken Posted May 21, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 405 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 98 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/27/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted May 21, 2014 Shiloh357 - No, because according to the Bible, the luminaries are not created until day four. In fact, it makes sense that they were not created until day four. "If let there be light" applied to the luminaries, then your argument about them becoming visible on day four makes no sense as they would have already been visible. Certainly they would not have been visible if the earth was shrouded in such a way that the “luminaries” were not able to be directly seen from earth. So on day 1 we have light, on day 4 we have lights... still see Job 38 as valid insight, further if the viewpoint is earthbound then day 4 is the visibility of the lights spoken into existence by light on day 1. He isn't separating day and night. He is separating His light from darkness. Then why refer to light as “day” and darkness as “night”? Why not simply leave such notations for day 4? So prior to creation God’s light was darkness??? Otherwise why would He need to separate them? And if the light was “good” why was it necessary to replace? There is no scriptural support to the light being God’s glory. The creation account isn't a scientific account, it is a theological account of creation. In that case why not simply accept the findings of science? If the account is strictly theological then it would seem pointless to argue anything with a scientific viewpoint. Job 38 has nothing to do with this and it certainly provides no basis for trying to fit a theory predicated on the nonexistence of God into the Scriptures. I believe you are aware how weak such a remark is ...“predicated on the nonexistence of God”, because one does not agree with your interpretation hardly suggests a belief in the nonexistence of God. (I’m sure you are aware of the fallacies involved in that statement) Who is speaking in Job 38? or are you suggesting that the passage does not relate to creation? Indeed, “where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?” and “when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Certainly they would not have been visible if the earth was shrouded in such a way that the “luminaries” were not able to be directly seen from earth. So on day 1 we have light, on day 4 we have lights... still see Job 38 as valid insight, further if the viewpoint is earthbound then day 4 is the visibility of the lights spoken into existence by light on day 1. The viewpoint is God's not man's. It is not a man watching creation. You are running with an assumption that you have no basis for in Scripture. The Bible doesn't say that they simply became visible on day four. That is a made up assumption. Then why refer to light as “day” and darkness as “night”? Why not simply leave such notations for day 4? So prior to creation God’s light was darkness??? Otherwise why would He need to separate them? And if the light was “good” why was it necessary to replace? There is no scriptural support to the light being God’s glory. God is the only source of light on day one. He didn't "create" light on day one. He is the light. His glory is the only possible source of light. And because this is a theological account of creation, the separation of light from darkness is a statement about his nature vs. how the pagans view their gods as containing both good and evil (light and darkness). In that case why not simply accept the findings of science? If the account is strictly theological then it would seem pointless to argue anything with a scientific viewpoint. Because science is not a tool of biblical interpretation and every scientific theory in existence that pertains to origins of man and his environs is offered up as an alternative to the biblical account. While it is not a scientific account, God gives us enough light to see that man's theories are in direct conflict with God's word. I believe you are aware how weak such a remark is ...“predicated on the nonexistence of God”, because one does not agree with your interpretation hardly suggests a belief in the nonexistence of God. That isn't what I said. I am saying that the Big Bang is theory that is predicated on the nonexistence of God and it rather foolish to drag Job 38 into the discussion because you want to reconcile a godless theory with the Bible. I am not saying you don't believe in God, but you are ascribing to theory that is meant to explain origins of the universe without God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolken Posted May 21, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 405 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 98 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/27/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted May 21, 2014 Shiloh357 - The viewpoint is God's not man's. It is not a man watching creation. You are running with an assumption that you have no basis for in Scripture. The Bible doesn't say that they simply became visible on day four. That is a made up assumption. The Bible does not suggest, imply, or anywhere state that the light on day 1 emanated from God. There is no basis in scripture that supports the day 1 light as God's glory...I would assume God's glory existed prior to creation so then technically there were only 5 days of creative commands, not six. Further there is absolutely no suggestion on day 4 that in some way the "original" light ended, was replaced, or anything of the sort. At a point all interpretations to some degree become a viewpoint from silence. While it is not a scientific account, God gives us enough light to see that man's theories are in direct conflict with God's word. Not true, myriad theories of "man" do not conflict with God's word. The conflict comes from "man" asserting beyond the basics in an attempt to eliminate God, that however does not mean the basics of all theories do not necessarily contain some truth. I believe the Genesis account to be an accurate descriptive of God's creative commands and therefore in a general sense would not conflict with reasoned science. I am saying that the Big Bang is theory that is predicated on the nonexistence of God and it rather foolish to drag Job 38 into the discussion because you want to reconcile a godless theory with the Bible. First, the BB is not necessarily a godless theory, and we know that God spoke everything into existence yet the how is left silent in scripture. Actually, the reason that BB is anathema to so many "godless" scientists is that it supports a beginning, and God enters that equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjp34652 Posted May 21, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 17 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 448 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 156 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/19/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted May 21, 2014 The first verses of Genesis describe the creation of the Universe. To me it is a tolerable description of the Big Bang. One of the most enigmatic phrases is that the Earth was created but was without form and void. It was created but it wasn't there. Que? My insight into that is that the God had the thought first. That the Creation was the thought and that it was then made real. If space before the Big Bang was empty, devoid of matter, then its natural state is dark. Light and Life that comes with it, have to be physically introduced. 'Let there be light' is the Big Bang. We have accumulated a vast store of knowledge since the time in which Genesis was written. The trick is to take what we know and see it through the filter of the knowledge extant at the time. Moses, Abraham et al believed the Earth was flat and that would have influenced their world view. Obviously the Big Bang could not be appreciated in the terms we know today, it was described to the best that their abilities would allow. I believe that this describes a Big Bang. I don't understand the resistance Christians have in acknowledging our explosive birth. After all someone must have lit the fuse.... There is no trick, except the one in the mind of the scoffer or the uneducated. Moses, Abraham and company did NOT believe the world was flat. Show me in the Bible, or any other legitimate document, that they did. The flat earth idea came out of the middle ages (that period of European history between the fall of Rome - the western empire capital, and the fall of Constantinople - the eastern empire capital). You err on the side of the scoffer's track of history. The Bible is a book about the FALL and the REDEMPTION of man. The Word of God chronicles the beginning of that event more than six thousand years ago. The Bible isn't about geophysical records, dinosaurs or even the development of domestic animals. ANY good book is consistent with its own theme - the Bible no less. If you want a book about astronomy, I suggest you visit the library and get one. There's no detailed discussion about the revolutions of the planets and the stars in Holy Writ. If you want a book about dinosaurs, I suggest a book on the jurassic period or one of the other prehistoric records. The Bible doesn't mention it at all (although there is an extremely detailed description of 2 species of dragons in Job 41). Bottom line here is that the Bible is about the spiritual condition of man - how he lost it and how God established a way to heal it and reinvigorate the species. Oh yes, and the Bible doesn't say anything about illiterate people who misquote its pages. Pity. Such a discussion would be interesting to read. and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolken Posted May 21, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 405 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 98 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/27/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted May 21, 2014 Fresno Joe - God's Historical Accounting Will Never Be Successfully Overturned By Man's Philosophical Interpretations You See Blessings Fresno Joe, God gave us the mental endowments to come to a knowledge of Him, and further to seek to understand His creation. In Genesis the Bible offers a blueprint of creation predicated on one irrefutable truth "In the beginning God..." That there are various interpretations of the Genesis account in no way implies an attempt to "overturn" God's "historical accounting". As noted in a previous thread there are a number of issues that Christians may disagree on while holding firmly to the core/essential beliefs namely as stated in John 3:16, Acts 4:2, Ephesians 2:8-9, 1 John 5:12, etc. All else within reason is peripheral ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted May 21, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted May 21, 2014 Shiloh357 - No, because according to the Bible, the luminaries are not created until day four. In fact, it makes sense that they were not created until day four. "If let there be light" applied to the luminaries, then your argument about them becoming visible on day four makes no sense as they would have already been visible. Certainly they would not have been visible if the earth was shrouded in such a way that the “luminaries” were not able to be directly seen from earth. So on day 1 we have light, on day 4 we have lights... still see Job 38 as valid insight, further if the viewpoint is earthbound then day 4 is the visibility of the lights spoken into existence by light on day 1. He isn't separating day and night. He is separating His light from darkness. Then why refer to light as “day” and darkness as “night”? Why not simply leave such notations for day 4? So prior to creation God’s light was darkness??? Otherwise why would He need to separate them? And if the light was “good” why was it necessary to replace? There is no scriptural support to the light being God’s glory. The creation account isn't a scientific account, it is a theological account of creation. In that case why not simply accept the findings of science? If the account is strictly theological then it would seem pointless to argue anything with a scientific viewpoint. Job 38 has nothing to do with this and it certainly provides no basis for trying to fit a theory predicated on the nonexistence of God into the Scriptures. I believe you are aware how weak such a remark is ...“predicated on the nonexistence of God”, because one does not agree with your interpretation hardly suggests a belief in the nonexistence of God. (I’m sure you are aware of the fallacies involved in that statement) Who is speaking in Job 38? or are you suggesting that the passage does not relate to creation? Indeed, “where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?” and “when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness” Not using the 'quote' feature makes it appear that you are talking to yourself. And makes comments hard to decipher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachyielding Posted May 21, 2014 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/21/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted May 21, 2014 I like the way they put it in the movie, God's Not Dead. It was something to the effect of, "When God said 'Let there be light', was that not when the big bang happened"? Link removed, please don't post personal sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coheir Posted May 21, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,458 Content Per Day: 0.55 Reputation: 729 Days Won: 5 Joined: 02/09/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/31/1950 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I probably should not post because I will most likely dumb down the conversation. However this is very interesting to me and I see a couple verses that may shine some light here. The best way to go about a project is to first make a plan and the better the plan the better the project will turn out, Im sure everyone will agree God had a very good plan. v1 God created the heaven and earth. v2 darkness was upon the face of the (deep)waters.And God moved upon the face of the waters. Now when I read Exo 33:19-22;;;Exo 34:29-30;;;Ezk 1:26-28;;;Rev 1:16;;; Isa 60:19-22 these verse make it possible to see anywhere God is he radiates a light. So when God moved upon the face of the waters I can visualize the only light is him. His plan was to create and go back to his home not stay on earth and produce light for humans eyes to see by, he knew all his creation would need night and day to get by on earth so what does he do v3 he creates light that will be here for earth at least 6000 years. After the creation he went back to his home which can not be seen with mans inventions even if we put them into outer space they still can not see his abode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts